By Ken Phillis, October 21, 2021
The BOD spent property owners’ money to sway the election to a yes vote when there was the vote for the Declarations a few years ago. Now they did the same thing pushing for a yes vote on assessments. They used property owners’ money to sway an election. Shameful.
Those who lean toward a no vote understand the assessment should be increased, however, not without a concrete mechanism to ensure the money will be spent where they say they are going to spend it. Obviously, that has not worked well since there are over 40 million dollars in deferred maintenance and many poor financial decisions made which have wasted millions of property owners’ money. The latest one is the trash truck lease deal. Try getting the information on that one. I have, and no answers/figures yet.
Historically the BOD has voted as a block supporting poor financial deals in the past. Trying to obtain a supermajority to stop the BOD from squandering property owners’ money has a snowballs chance in hades.
I attended the recent town hall meeting and submitted a 3×5 card as that was the procedure for anyone with questions. They did not get to my questions and unfortunately, I was not able to discuss my questions with a BOD member after the meeting. My wife’s 93-year-old mother was visiting and we needed to get back to our home. Is there anyone who can honestly answer the following questions? Since the trash truck deal is a lease, how long is the lease? What is the cost to renew the lease? How much was the annual cost to repair the trucks we already had? The original cost of the lease was 1.2 million (at least that’s what was being stated) then there was the news of a $400,000 “overrun”. If this is true, how does a lease agreement/deal have a $400,000 overrun?
The yes voters have continued to lambast those who want culpability and accountability for the money being spent. So what they (the yes voters) are willing to do is open their wallets and allow a system/management style (which has failed to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the property owners) to continue with the same failed system/management style. Again, those who are wanting a secure safeguard of where the money is supposed to be spent do know and agree there needs to be an increase….however not without that safeguard.
* * *
Thank you for reading. If you like, please comment below.We love to hear your opinion, but comments must be made using your first and last real name, or they will not be accepted. If you would like to submit an article for publication, please contact us through this website. Be sure to bookmark this website.